unfriend-liness

I have seen a few of my Facebook friends, current and former, suggest they will be ‘unfriendling’ a number of people on hiss FBF list, suggesting he has entirely too many people on the list. One former FBF suggested it seemed that people were collecting friends. I suggested, ‘is that not the purpose of Facebook.’ Overnight, I was cut.
Let us think about my suggestion for a bit. Is the purpose of any social not-working site, in the end, to make acquaintance with the widest group of people possible? For the most part, that is how they are designed. You find people to whom you make an initial acquaintance, you find acquaintances of them for whom you are interested, and you connect with them. Others do the same, and most people, myself included, have no incentive to exclude anyone. We all want to acquaint ourselves with as many as possible. That is how we find true friends without creating a negative image, similar to the cliques created in the original social not-works, the bars, churches and other ‘social’ clubs pre-PC.
Interaction is usually confined to text-based services, something similar to e-mail, instant messaging or chat. the problem with these services is that they are devoid of all emotional queues. Sarcasm, irony, passion, and other clues as to the intent of what is said are lost. Often, this results in misinterpretation of the meaning of that is being said. [This has happened to me more than once, with negative effect.] Because of that, people have attempted to create emotional queues, often with limited success. Those who become experts at the social services, and who become familiar with the textual style of another, learn to interpret what is said more properly. This happens rarely. My response in the first paragraph, the one that got me unfriended, was meant as sarcasm.
Some social not-working services, Facebook being the most notorious, places strict limits as to interaction. You can only post so many message, or engage so many people a day, before you get a warning for being too social, or ‘abusing the service.’ All of a sudden, you now have to limit the amount of interaction. But, you developed a wide group of acquaintances. You can comment on their updates, if they ever post them. [most do not at all. very few do daily.] You can participate in the offered social ‘games’ or ‘applications’, if your friends are in to those things, and within the limits of interaction. Now, you have to be selective with whom you interact. But, you want to interact with everyone. You are in a trap. what is worse is that every expects you to interact. Do you see interaction from them? Pot. Kettle. Stand-offish!
I have seen suggestions on twitter they would use that more than Facebook. I am sure people feel the opposite. I have dropped a number of social not-working services, simply because they did not offer the depth of interaction I would like. that is why I am no longer on myspace, and why I am thinking about dropping tagged for the second time, why gay.com and gaydar.co.uk are distant memories. For me, as for many, social not-working sites are about my only form of interaction. I know it is a fairly hollow form of interaction, and I want more face-to-face engagement. As in real life, I find it difficult to engage with a large crowd, yet I do not want to turn anyone away. I amy not want to interact with them all the same way, but I do not want not to interact with them. While I can see why some may wish to ‘thin the herd,’ I cannot bring myself to be that unfriendly. Yet, I cannot interact with everyone all at one. The ultimate dilemma that makes ‘social networking’ more ‘social not-working’.